Mumbai NCLT Approves ₹1,611-Crore Resolution Plan For Gstaad Hotels; Rejects Suspended Promoters' Objections
Mumbai, September 7, 2026: The Mumbai Bench-I of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has approved a Rs 1,611-crore resolution plan for Gstaad Hotels Private Limited, paving the way for the revival of the hospitality company under a plan submitted by Shree Naman Developers Private Limited.
The order was pronounced on September 3, 2026, by the bench comprising judicial member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and technical member Prabhat Kumar.
Resolution Plan Exceeds Liquidation Value
The resolution plan provides for a total consideration of Rs 1,611 crore, substantially higher than the company’s average liquidation value of Rs 1,028.33 crore. The two registered valuers had assessed the liquidation value at Rs 1,047.65 crore and Rs 1,009.01 crore, respectively.
The tribunal said the higher resolution amount demonstrated that the plan was commercially more beneficial than liquidation and would maximise value for stakeholders.
“The Form H Compliance Certificate clearly demonstrates that the Plan provides for payment of CIRP costs in priority, ensures minimum statutory protection to operational creditors, makes adequate provision for dissenting financial creditors, and does not contravene any provision of law for the time being in force. The Resolution Plan submitted by Shree Naman Developers Private Limited provides for a total resolution consideration of Rs. 16,11,00,00,000. The Resolution Plan Value of Rs. 1,611 Crores substantially exceeds the average liquidation value of Rs. 1028.33 Crores, as determined by the two Registered Valuers, namely RNC Valuecon LLP (Rs. 1047.65 Crores) and KKCA Valuers LLP (Rs. 1009.01 Crores), thereby demonstrating that the approved Resolution Plan maximises value for the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and is commercially more beneficial than liquidation,” the order copy reads.
Shree Naman Developers, a real estate developer with interests in hospitality and allied sectors, emerged as the successful resolution applicant. Its plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 98.96% of the voting share.
The plan provides for payment of 100% of admitted claims of operational creditors. It also provides for upfront settlement of admitted debts and contingent debts through the Rs 1,611-crore resolution amount.
Suspended Directors Oppose Plan
Meanwhile, the approval was opposed by suspended directors Deepak B. Raheja and Anita D. Raheja, who sought rejection of the resolution plan. They alleged, among other things, that claims forming the basis of the CoC’s constitution and voting rights had not been properly verified, particularly the debt claimed by Omkara ARC. They also questioned the treatment of interest, security interests, ECLGS facilities, avoidance recoveries and shareholder interests.
“The Applicants, being the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor, have opposed the approval of the Resolution Plan dated 12.03.2026 along with clarification dated 07.05.2026, alleging that the CIRP proceeded on the basis of disputed, unverified and continuously evolving claims and that the Resolution Professional failed to independently verify the claims forming the basis of the constitution and voting share of the CoC, particularly the financial debt claimed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, including penal/default interest and other charges, resulting in material defects in claim admission, creditor classification, voting rights and stakeholder treatment,” the order copy read.
NCLT Rejects Promoters’ Objections
The tribunal, however, rejected the objections. It held that the NCLT has limited jurisdiction while examining a resolution plan and cannot ordinarily interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC.
The tribunal said the objectors had not produced cogent material demonstrating that relevant information was unavailable to or not deliberated upon by the CoC.
Also Watch:
“The Resolution Applicant, for effective implementation of the Plan, shall obtain all necessary approvals, under any law for the time being in force, within such period as may be prescribed. It is clarified that the authorities shall not withhold the approval/consent/extension for the reason of insolvency of the Corporate Debtor or extinguishment of their dues up to approval of Resolution plan in terms of the approved plan. Any relief or concession as sought on the plan shall be subject to the provisions of the relevant Act,” the order copy reads.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/